Women Would Vote for Hitler
A woman voting on anything other than American Idol or her personal favorite type of chocolate is like watching a small child run full speed into a wall. Clearly the fundamentals are understood. The child runs, it’s going somewhere and there’s no doubt about that. The child can run. But very quickly one comes to the understanding that somewhere, somehow, the process has been perverted. Then comes the wall. Then comes the crying.
Women would vote for Hitler. Not because a woman could be talked into buying a catsup Popsicle while she was wearing white gloves, but because women are all fascists.
Don’t believe me? Let’s leave the constant threat of castration out of it for the moment. That makes it a slam dunk in my book, but that’s fine. Women are just “joking” whenever they play fascism card #1.
How about oppressive dictatorship by force or threat of violence?
Anyone who’s married will tell you a lot of things. The first of which will be, “Don’t get fucking married for any reason you dumb shit.” But a likely secondary is that marriage is not a democracy. What is it then?
Marriage is a fascist dictatorship of oppression — and so is any relationship with a woman. Work, professional, “professional”; they’re all the same. If you don’t like the flavor of the Kool-Aid and you want to add some mix, prepare to have a wailing siren of bullshit go off in your ear. That’s assault and that’s oppression. That’s enforcing your opinion through the threat of violence. If you press the issue, prepare to receive the threat of withheld friendship — or even sex whether it’s applicable or not! There was another man who pulled the same kind of shit. Yep, Hitler.
The biggest women/fascism link is a woman’s reliance on violence. Women will be the first to hit during any kind of dispute. It’s not even a percentage. It’s as much of a guarantee as it is that the sun will rise tomorrow. And as men we can all understand that the sun rises because it’s actually a star that our planet rotates around, therefore it is guaranteed to rise. We are able to remove ourselves from our personal point of view and understand that the sun isn’t rising at all. It’s actually us who are spinning around the sun. Women don’t even fucking know that.
Every morning when a woman wakes up at the crack of 10:30 she’s thrilled to shit to see that the sun’s in the sky again and her fake orange tan will look just as radiant as it did yesterday. That’s one of the biggest reasons why women shouldn’t vote. They don’t know fucking anything about anything. They know nothing.
But that’s not why women would vote for Hitler if given the chance. Say what you want about the merits of an individual ethos of governments as you will. You’re all men and therefore deserve the right to express opinion unmitigated by slander or censure. What I’m saying is that by an intrinsic party affiliation — fascist — all women would check the box marked ‘Kill Or Savagely Beat Anyone Who Doesn’t Agree With Me’. That fact has always held women back more than any mythical glass ceiling.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 107 … 20 19 18 17 16 [15] 14 13 12 11 10 … 1 » Show All
Actually, that last statement is of some scatologic comfort to me, I must admit. For I see peace in the Middle East as definitive sign of the end times, the apocalypse as stated in the Bible.
Just my 2 cents. Sorry if I freaked anyone out.
Female you stupid doozy cunt, every time you say something halfway intelligent you ruin it by adding some bullshit like “AMERKKKA WANTS ARAB OIL”.
If you were literate, you would have read my post and not said such a stupid thing.
Coal to oil is not some technological pipedream horseshit like hydrogen or cold fusion or anything else eggheads like to make up for fun. It’s fact and there’s enough coal to give the US energy independance for 250 years, never mind all the oil left in the US or friendly countries who don’t live in the 14th century.
Iraq is a geopolitical plot/war/failure and not one for resources. Because of this offensive war of aggression, and our subsequent withdraw and retreat, the Republic will be viewed not only as a bully, but a weak bully. We will have even less influence in the Middle East than we did before Iraq, which will have Shiite/Sunni civil war that will make the world leaps and bounds more dangerous than it was with Saddam in power.
And the the chances of reform in Iran or peace in Israel will not happen for 100 years.
Women’s logic? Is there such a thing?
I don’t think they’re trying to install democracy to bring modernity to Iraq for Iraq sake, they’re trying to install it, so they can control the region and thereby:
1. Ensure Bin Ladin or some other extremist nutbar doesn’t take control, make nukes and aim them at the West
and as a an added bonus,
2. Gain oil.
The Neocons are an afront and abomination to the word “conservative”.
1. They pretend we’re in a war for the fate of civilization, yet while fighting foreign wars don’t even protect our own southern border.
2. They spend like drunken sailors in a whore house. Guns or butter? According to fuckwit Neocons you can have it all.
3. The Iraq war is not for oil. There’s enough coal in the US to have energy independance for 250 years at $1.13 a gallon at the pump. What’s worse though than the dirty imperialistic war that the Left is trying to paint Iraq as being? The pathetic fact that Bush and friends honestly believed that a bunch of fuckwits living in the 14th century could live under democracy and stop hating modernity. Truely pathetic. Almost as ignorant as giving women the vote.
They’re not Christian conservatives, they’re communists failing miserably in their attempt to make the world bow down to the one true Neocon diety, Global Democracy. And what a failure it has been.
“spcwby, your views are nonsensical, and historically staggeringly ignorant. I think if you were confronted with what you’ve posted now, in 20 years, you’d be ashamed.
That said, the Republicans do not deserve to win.”
-wolfe
Talk about being politically ( as well as historically) ignorant….way beyond words for your (hopefully) self-imposed limitations.
Example: How do you think Hillary attained her postion?….by going with the lowest common factor for her largest supporters (women) as NY males did not vote for her…something the Neocons have made an artform of.
Sadly, the older I become the brighter the light grows…..as truth (ie womens behaviours) trumps women’s logic every time.
Btw Neither party deserves to win:The Dems have been neutered and the Repubs continue to fall upon their own swords.
I did not write the article….just observed some familiar trends that I’ve noticed for many decades now.
Perhaps you might consider the premise that; A mind is like a parachute, it best utilized when opened!
….Take a chance, pull the ripcord
spcwby, your views are nonsensical, and historically staggeringly ignorant. I think if you were confronted with what you’ve posted now, in 20 years, you’d be ashamed.
That said, the Republicans do not deserve to win.
-wolfe
Nov 7th….will the Soccer/Safety moms show their mettle or just vote with their emotions as with the hardwiring they’ve had since the begining of time?
IF the swing voters prove to be Soccer/Safety moms…….then (as per usual) Dick is el correcto!
Btw I’m curious (as Hell) with which what shows/networks the message(s) will be distributed on….that, alone should indicated women’s capacity to logically (…or not) process info and determine if the message is rational or garbage. Or default to their stupid cunt mode and vote like the Sheeple that the leaderships (bothsides) know they are.
As always, your views maybe different!
Neo-Fascists Threaten Terror Unless Voters Approve Dictatorship
Bush junta deploys Osama campaign videos to frighten sheep into tacitly supporting unitary decidership
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 20 2006
The Bush junta has potentially unveiled its “October surprise” in a desperate last gasp effort to salvage its power monopoly, a rash of lavishly funded campaign videos in which Osama Bin Laden is used to threaten Americans with terror attacks unless they vote Republican in the mid-term elections.
The Associated Press reports,
“The Republican Party will begin airing a hard-hitting ad this weekend that warns of more cataclysmic terror attacks against the U.S. homeland.”
“The ad displays an array of quotes from bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that include bin Laden’s Dec. 26, 2001 vow that “what is yet to come will be even greater.”
The Neo-Fascists have employed their most loyal servant - Osama Bin Laden - to star in campaign videos threatening the American people with armageddon unless they tacitly approve the occupational dictatorship of George W. Bush.
When questioned on exactly what he meant in promising an “October surprise,” Karl Rove made reference to the formulation and massive investment into the production and dissemination of these ads.
The fact that the terrorists within the Bush administration would again threaten terror unless the dissenters and the waverers got back in line is hardly a surprise. The only real stunner is that they still have the temerity to believe this lowest common denominator propaganda still has a significant impact on the body politic of the nation - in the face of example piled atop example of hoax terror alerts that have left the public fatigued to the rumor mill of “the inevitable attack.”
Recent polls show only a third still support the war in Iraq and just 16% of the population believes the entirety of the government’s version of what happened on 9/11.
In saying that however, the massive voting block of the elderly, ostracized from the red pill of the Internet, largely still buy the scam that only cokehead Bush can protect them from his business partner Osama.
Karl Rove is messianically clinging to the belief that he can scare enough soccer moms and pensioners into helping the Neo-Fascists retain both Houses - or at least get close to it and let the CIA run electronic voting machines do the rest.
If there’s a manufactured scare around election day the threat of chaos and the need for a focused government response could quickly silence enough vote fraud naysayers to re-entrench the power monopoly of Bush’s unitary decidership.
A leaked November 2005 GOP memo which discussed ways of avoiding a comprehensive defeat in the mid-terms touted a terror attack as one of the few ways Republicans could reverse Bush’s sagging fortunes. Another suggested scenario was the announcement of the capture or death of Osama Bin Laden.
The Neo-Cons are threatening violence in an attempt to influence the actions and democratic participation of the citizens of the United States of America.
That is the very definition of terrorism.
ter-ror-ism –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Actually I would say eons Gwallan.
-Strength and Honor-
So pointing out another’s sexism is hypocrisy? Cool! Does that mean that all the feminist screeching about sexism over four decades makes them hypocrits?
But you were wrong. I could equally say that eostrogen levels influence agression.
And what makes you think women are less agressive than men. Study in the US last year observing men and women playing violent video games. Women were less agressive than men when they were being observed. However when they thought nobody was watching they went absolutely ballistic and left the men way behind.
Women are not necessarily less agressive than men. They are, however, less able to physically demonstrate that agression. They use others to to agress on their behalves. They incite men to fight for them. Or get the police or government to do it.
Backpedal, backpedal. Caught out, must change tack.
In emergencies it’s always men who have to bail the poor dears out while they sit around sobbing. Who determines what is appropriate and what is not? When the next large meteor targets the Earth should we sit around wailing about our impending doom or get off our fat arses and do something about it? Like bomb the crap out of it.
Women have depended on mens aggressive responses throughout our species entire existence. You sleep safe at night because burly aggressive men are guarding the gates of our civilisation. Change that at your peril.
Possibly because men are sick of their bullshit whining. Men are doers. They are problem solvers. This is not what women want. They want to be able to sit around and sook. They will solve nothing and be back again for more of the same tomorrow. They have the luxury of doing this because they know that men will take responsiblity to actually do the repairs.
Women can listen but refuse to where men are concerned. The whole world is expected to rally round a woman who’s down on her luck. A man in a similar situation is a loser. He’s an item of disgust. Be honest - what is your immediate reaction to a homeless man trying to keep warm under a piece of cardboard in an alley.
Those sexist women are given the opportunity to teach their lies to millions in womens studies courses throughout the western world. And fools like you believe them. Men’s problems have been drowned out by the cacophany of screeching women for decades.
Women don’t usually go to men for support, do they? They go to women. Men could go to other men, as men are ‘great listeners’. Women are supportive as well, it’s just men have this prejudice that women can’t listen.
That prevents them going to women for help. Not all women believe that men are opressors, the majority of men aren’t oppressors, it’s just sexist women who think this. There are women who are for equality, and would gladly listen to any problems, if men gave them the chance.
Behold the plume of idiocy hovering. Rayna, your dim wit is intoxicating.
Yes, Ray - but this is very simplistic thinking on your part.
Why do men feel the need to bottle up their emotions rather than express them? Could it be that men do not feel a need to communicate their feelings as women do?
Could it be that they do not think that their ‘feelings’ really matter given that so many feminist groups like to label them as brutal oppressors responsible for war, rape, violence and abuse? Who cares about the feelings of a brutal oppressor after all? Who would listen to a man who was sexually abused by a woman? Or a man who was beaten by his wife or girlfriend? Who is really there to listen to the ‘feelings’ of such men?
I don’t know, not being a man myself I don’t think I would like to hazard a guess as to why this is so. But I have some clues as to why that may be so.
It’s a complex issue, that is as far as I know for sure.
-Luka
Aren’t you being a bit hypocritical saying that I am being sexist? I’m just pointing out that testosterone levels tend to influence agression. I said that womens were less than mens. Okay then, I won’t refer to male hormones, how about the psychology of men? They tend to repress their emotions instead of talking them out, like women do. So instead of getting their problems off their chest, they bottle them up. This causes them to get aggressive in inappropriate situations. So yet again, the men would lash out first.
Let us not forget that quintessential classic of feminist dogma, sexual dimorphism is but a mere social construct. Got to admit, they used a novel locution.
Amasing, the idiotic, blind belief in gratifying contrived facts and mumbo jumbo pseudo science some of the more asinine creatures are willing to invest at a moment’s notice.
Tell me Ray, if I were to wear a labcoat and mischieviously claim sows could fly if they’d want to, would you construe you can jump buck naked off the IContinental and live? Manly building it is, btw.
I won’t claim such a dastardly thing as I would pity the hapless creature befallen by your considerable newtonian mass.
wolfe has, as usual, adequately dealt with your arguments.
I will call you on the testosterone statement however. T has a bad rep fostered by ignorant feminists clutching at any opportunity to demean men.
Recent research indicates that low levels of testosterone in men are more likely to create aggression. In fact suplementing testosterone in either men or women has opposite effects. It increases aggression in women while having a calming effect on men.
We are still learning about the affects of various sex hormones but it is looking increasingly likely that imbalances are the source of individual difficulties. To automatically blame the male hormones for aggression is too simplistic and smacks of unthinking and unenlightened sexism on your part.
Read much? After all, I said:
Sandra said:
Only by the women who post here.
Ray/Johnny/Random Spamname 34 said:
No problem, most women must be pretty used to that. Again with the reading comprehension. No, it’s not the sex with women that’s “awful”, that can be delightful (or not, depending upon the woman), it’s other aspects of women that men here question. Most (probably all) here are heterosexual. Indeed, gay men don’t have to deal with women the way straight men do, so probably are much more tolerant of women’s behavior.
-wolfe
both are unacceptable.
Of course, if it were paid ‘labour’, it would be an entirely different ballgame altogether. But a fucky for nothing is integrally unacceptable.
horrible.